The Phantom of the Opera

HOW ABOUT GIVING EVERYONE A ``NUMBER`` AND IDENTIFYING PEOPLE BY NUMBER, NOT
BY NAME, RELIGION. GIVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES AND NOT PAMPERED RIGHTS AND NOT GUARANTEE OUTCOMES.

``It has not helped the Dalits in India or the African Americans in the US. ``

On principle I am as well. But I disagree with your assertion that it has not helped Dalits. It has given them a confidence that did not exist 50 years ago. I am a Hindu, I was dead set against reservations with Mandal. But I support reservations for Muslims out of self interest. The better of Muslims in India are, the better for the country. Minorities who succeed buy into the country.

Muslims in India suffer from a crisis of confidence (not the ones who are well off) and that can be overcome if there are role models in significant numbers. A dozen mid level government functionaries are more encouraging to Muslim youth then one president. Anyways, just my opinion..you are obviously entitled to your own.

Re : Stuka # 13
“Faruk: I agree with your point about economic integration. If Muslims are smart, they will trade off the UCC etc for reservation quota in government jobs. That certainly is one way to achieve upward mobility.”

I am in favor of UCC because its in the larger interest of Indian Muslims. I don’t think we have anything to trade here. I am dead against reservation! It’s a cheap politics, its never helped anyone. It has not helped the Dalits in India or the African Americans in the US.

Regards,

Faruk

Veeresh

A law equivalent to your 497 exists in Muslim Family Law of Paksitan of 1962. I don`t know the section number of it or its history. It is consistent with Hanfi fiqah though. The reason why it is not a part of Indian Muslim Family Law is unknown to me.

Urstruly, decrees by religious courts within a religion, if it doesn`t impact society, are binding on people who choose to abide. But the problem here in India is that some elements of the ``Muslim leadership`` try to force it down the throats of other Muslims.

Obviously that is changing. A Muslim, or for that anybody else, has the option of using the Civil Law as applicable to all other Indians, if s/he so desires. Less reported, but this is happening, and there cannot and will not be a Shah Bano Case everytime.

The fuss about a separate code for Muslims is mainly from a group of increasingly dis-enfranchised so-called educated elite and some elements of the clergy. This can`t be quanitified, obviously, but then I have as much right to form an opinion as does the author.

+++

An interesting side-issue:- the Criminal Procedure Code is common for all Indians. (Quite the same as it is in Pakistan, the numbers are almost all still the same, thanks to Macaulay?)

Now Section 497 of the CrPC in India makes adultery an offence where only a man can be prosecuted. Women are given immunity from this section.

I know some very fine Muslim gentlemen from a variety of sections of society who are told in no unclear terms by their one wife that in case he should try to get a second wife home, then she will file against him under Section 497 of the Indian CrPC! More power to them, and no amount of Muslim Civil Code or Personal laws will save their skin here.

Just out of interest, is Section 497 CrPC still there in Pakistan?

Urstruly,nowhere in the West does Muslim personal law trump the country`s own law.Not even in countries where Muslims are routinely singled out for pre-flight checks and rechecks.Somehow,though,when there`s so much more money to be earned and the countries are so much more powerful than India,Muslims don`t seem to have much of a problem with that.It`s like,rich countries can do what they want,but India`s poor so we can make all the demands we like and they have to give in.I realise that in order to stay a believer,you need to tell yourself that the Shariat is best of all laws,but please don`t try to tell the rest of us that,too.I don`t believe India needs to take advice on secularism from Pakistan...we`ve had plenty of sad days.We`re a 3rd world country,what do you expect?
I see your point,Zafar,that Muslims need to ask for a common code,not have it foisted upon them,but I wonder if that will ever happen.There is too much invested in keeping Muslims separate.The poor Muslim does need education and jobs,as does the poor Hindu,but when I read articles like Alex Perry`s latest for Time(which talks about how much poorer and more illiterate Muslims are than Hindus as part of an article which talked of the`discrimination` Muslims face in India,and had interviews with the SIMI)I have to ask,what is the poor Muslim doing about it?How does he expect to get a job if he learns only about Islam and not about genes or computers?Many reforms throughout history would never have happened if they had not been externally imposed.I can see the dangers in this,but what choice do we have?

Veeresh

I do not exactly know the extent of jurisdiction of those courts but although they have a structure that of a ``panchayat`` their decrees are binding. That makes them an almost parallel judicial system to the law of the land but this parallelism cannot co-exist with law of the land unless jurisdictions are clearly defined first. And along with jurisdiction they must have an authority to enforce.

As long Muslims themselves believe having 4 wives is not wrong, as long as they insist on veiling their women and keeping them illiterate, as long they continue believing blindly in the word of their hatemongering maulanas, as long as they consider themself victims, there is no sense in forcing new laws on them. The resentment will only grow. And the practical implications cannot be ignored

---

concepts like marriage, divorce, succession are so steeped in religion on the present day, who`s going to take on the additional burden of the new ``secular`` processes that replace these?

There`s also who`s driving this initiative to be considered. The ruling party`s demand for UCC stems from some vague sense of injustice and the perception- right or wrong- that Indian Muslims are a coddled lot.

Frankly I don`t see what the big deal is.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: arjun_m

Agreed!

You cannot please all of the people of all of the time and when you do, you end up displeasing all of the people all of the time!

Ciao

Urstruly # 16 - thanks, but I researched that, and it is no different from permitting any community to have its own association or even ``panchayat``, like a ``club`` . . . but the country`s own laws are supposed to be paramount, not to speak of being fair and applicable to all elements of society.

Please correct me if I am wrong?

.... i think it`s an internal matter of india and the ``supposedly`` paki support is nothing short of hypocricy. i also dislike indian muslims come to chowk for a shoulder to cry and to garner ``moral`` support, which obviously makes no difference in reality.if pakis are hell bent on changing laws, they should try changing the blasphemy law, at least they would be doing good for a change, instead of worrying about umma which never was.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

khurram # 18

I think you have raised an excellent point by mentioning the concept of ``legislation without representation``. In this regard I think the Millet System of Ottomans was quite an apt response to this challenge. The Millet System designated non-Muslims to formulate their own laws thru their own jurisprudence based on their own ideology/religion in sort of non-governmental councils who acted as such. Government/Caliphate was only responsible to enforce those laws.

In modern times, for example, in Paksitan, that was one of the ideas behind the concept of separate electorates so that non-Muslim minorities would have complete autonomy over their own customs and laws. The Islamic Law or Shariya in principle (as stipulated by Holy Prophet (pbuh)) is not applicable to non-Muslims. But sadly, there hasn`t been any legislation in this country since 1977, so none of it could materialize. The half assed attempts have done more harm than good.

Civil code usually refers to a much larger body of law than family law. I believe in India all citizens are treated equally in all civil disputes other than family law. It is only family law that is different for each religious community. I have always admired this feature of Indian democracy and consider it a plus over western democracies. Isn`t secularism and democracy all about leaving the state out of religious practice. Shouldn`t an individual or a community be free to practice their religious beliefs as long as it doesn`t affect others? If a uniform family law is imposed on all, whose law would it be?
However, the Indian family law system is not perfect. What is wrong with it is that it is essentially legislation without representation. I am sure there are a large number of muslims who disagree with this particular interpretation of Sharia. Yet they have no way of changing it. Nor can they opt out of it. What is needed is to improve the family law system by providing religious communities some democratic mechanism to keep it upto date.

zafar:

...some pitfalls were discussed by rafik zakaria and ram jethmalani...here is the link...go to:

http://www.chowk.com/show_forum_topic_post_list.cgi?channel=&tid=00002615&start=10&end=19&page=2&chapter=1

#70 by temporal on August 2, 2003 12:05pm PT
Hate will be disastrous Uniform Civil Code & the Supreme Court By Ram Jethmalani

and

#66 by dost-mittar on July 31, 2003 6:30pm PT
[Looks like RSS`s Guru Golwalkar was less intolerant than his disciples] Can a code ever become law? By Dr Rafiq Zakaria